How close are you in believing ?

As far as I understand it the Heisenburg Quantum Uncertainty Principle explains how particles can appear in the vacuum of space time, briefly put
these 'virtual' particles appear in pairs and then annihilate each other. Is that not the case? This doesn't explain the creation of the universe,
unless it popped into existence from another dimension say, which takes us to the problem of where did that other dimension come from? And so on.

Science can tell us much about the workings of the universe but as far as I'm aware it's impossible to go back before the moment of the big bang for
example. I am fine with theory's of a multi verse and what have you, what I struggle to understand is why an atheist is so convinced there is no
original creator? If there is no solid proof for or against why not just say it's an unknown?

Don't get me wrong I can fully understand why someone would not believe in certain religions and the high and almighty depicted there in. But from a
rational point of view why are some convinced(almost with religious like fervor I might add) there is no creator whatsoever? Based on what?

Why would scientists and academics be upset? Science isn't based on emotion, it's based on experiments and facts. If new facts are discovered one day
that change / expand our understanding of the singularity or big bang mechanics, then it ultimately improves our overall understanding and scientists
will be doing their job. The word "dogma" doesn't apply to science.. Science changes with new facts, religion is what uses absolutist dogma based on
nothing objective.

I'd mostly agree and appreciate science is based on experiments and facts, only history tells us academics can and have clung to ideas that are just
wrong. I recommend you read Bill Brysons A short history of nearly everything if you want proof of this. As I said some academics can get quite
dogmatic in what they hold to be true...

Filling the unknown with god causes just as many problems and questions as any other explanation. There could be billions of universes, alternate
dimensions of existence, membrane theory collision, other quantum effects, etc. To assume it either appeared out of nothing or was created
intelligently is a false dichotomy.

Filling an unknown with god I see would appear to be jumping to conclusions, but the same can be said of saying there definitely isn't one. I believe
it is beyond our ability to grasp as we are confronted with concept of eternity sooner or later, and while we can say something goes on forever we
can't really fully comprehend just what that implies. It is the same with the concept of a creator, it is beyond our ability to truly fathom.

I'm posting one more article which clearly shows that the wild type and mutant gene can co-exist and reproduce.
This, of course, is not always the case. The point is that the original wild type gene does not always go away - it can survive and reproduce along
side a mutation of itself.

Note the important point towards the end of the abstract:

A plausible interpretation of the different results obtained in the latter two sets of experiments, compared with the complementation behavior
observed in the heteroplasmic MERRF transformants, is that in the latter, the mutant and wild-type genomes coexisted in the same organelles from the
time of the mutation.

Complementation of mutant and wild-type human mitochondrial DNAs coexisting since the mutation event and lack of complementation of DNAs introduced
separately into a cell within distinct organelles.
M Yoneda, T Miyatake and G Attardi

ABSTRACT
The rules that govern complementation of mutant and wild-type mitochondrial genomes in human cells were investigated under different experimental
conditions. Among mitochondrial transformants derived from an individual affected by the MERRF (myoclonus epilepsy associated with ragged red fibers)
encephalomyopathy and carrying in heteroplasmic form the mitochondrial tRNA(Lys) mutation associated with that syndrome, normal protein synthesis and
respiration was observed when the wild-type mitochondrial DNA exceeded 10% of the total complement. In these transformants, the protective effect of
wild-type mitochondrial DNA was shown to involve interactions of the mutant and wild-type gene products. Very different results were obtained in
experiments in which two mitochondrial DNAs carrying nonallelic disease-causing mutations were sequentially introduced within distinct organelles into
the same human mitochondrial DNA-less (rho 0) cell. In transformants exhibiting different ratios of the two genomes, no evidence of cooperation
between their products was observed, even 3 months after the introduction of the second mutation. These results pointed to the phenotypic independence
of the two genomes. A similar conclusion was reached in experiments in which mitochondria carrying a chloramphenicol resistance-inducing mitochondrial
DNA mutation were introduced into chloramphenicol-sensitive cells. A plausible interpretation of the different results obtained in the latter two sets
of experiments, compared with the complementation behavior observed in the heteroplasmic MERRF transformants, is that in the latter, the mutant and
wild-type genomes coexisted in the same organelles from the time of the mutation. This would imply that the way in which mitochondrial DNA is sorted
among different organelles plays a fundamental role in determining the oxidative-phosphorylation phenotype in mammalian cells. These results have
significant implications for mitochondrial genetics and for studies on the transmission and therapy of mitochondrial DNA-linked diseases.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
I'd mostly agree and appreciate science is based on experiments and facts, only history tells us academics can and have clung to ideas that are just
wrong. I recommend you read Bill Brysons A short history of nearly everything if you want proof of this. As I said some academics can get quite
dogmatic in what they hold to be true...

This is usually done in response to irrational attacks on the science made by creationists and other science deniers. I don't consider it "dogmatic"
to fall back on the scientific research when somebody attacks it with complete ignorance and misunderstandings of the science, rather than legitimate
contradictory evidence. They don't fall back on dogma, they fall back on scientific research and that is the big difference.

Filling an unknown with god I see would appear to be jumping to conclusions, but the same can be said of saying there definitely isn't one. I believe
it is beyond our ability to grasp as we are confronted with concept of eternity sooner or later, and while we can say something goes on forever we
can't really fully comprehend just what that implies. It is the same with the concept of a creator, it is beyond our ability to truly
fathom.

I agree for the most part, except I don't really see too many folks claiming that god absolutely doesn't exist or that science proves that. People
are skeptical of god's existence due to the extreme lack of evidence. Non belief is the logical default until evidence is discovered. There is way
too much we don't know to assume one way or the other as fact. The universe and relevant dimensions that affect it could function in a cyclical
fashion, rather than a linear fashion for starters.

Why do you keep saying that?
It was a simple question I thought; does evolutionary theory – the MES – say anything about self assembly?

originally posted by: Phantom423
Self assembly could play a role in both.

What do you mean could? It does very much play a role in all of life. You and I were self assembled, were we not?

originally posted by: Phantom423
Regarding the word "teleological", I gave you my position on the subject - I'm not particularly interested in philosophical opinions - your
description of function and purpose overlap - and I don't agree with that.

That's fine. I was going off of your words when you said that structures are evolved to suit new requirements of organisms. Function and purpose,
biologically speaking, are very much related and defined by the structure, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Inserting human interpretations into the basic science causes confusion and misinterpretation of what the science actually says.

Human interpretation [of the natural world] is exactly what science is. We observe, measure, then interpret the findings.

As far as I understand it the Heisenburg Quantum Uncertainty Principle explains how particles can appear in the vacuum of space time, briefly put
these 'virtual' particles appear in pairs and then annihilate each other. Is that not the case?

That is perhaps one of the consequences of Uncertainty, not the whole of it, and Stephen Hawking has shown that virtual particles that appear near the
singularity may not annihilate each other. One may be 'lost' into the singularity while the other continues existence as a real particle - black holes
actually do radiate energy, and in this way can eventually "evaporate".

Uncertainty just means that two "complimentary variables" cannot both be known with arbitrary precision. Complementary variables include
Position/momentum, wave/particle, energy/duration, spin/spin on different axis, entanglement/coherence, field/change at a particular position.

This doesn't explain the creation of the universe, unless it popped into existence from another dimension say, which takes us to the problem of where
did that other dimension come from? And so on.

Note: any practicing physicists out there, please feel free to correct my clumsy explanation that follows. (Yes Dr. Hawkings, if you are listening, I
am appealing directly to you to correct me... but anyone who is qualified should feel free

)

Axiom: At the singularity there is no such thing as space-time. Three dimensional space does not exist. Time does not exist.

I am thinking along the lines of the energy/duration variables here. Since we know precisely the energy of the singularity (it is infinite) we cannot
know with any precision its duration. Therefore both zero and non-zero duration is possible according to uncertainty. However duration is a property
of time, and cannot exist unless space-time exists. Since uncertainty ALLOWS a non-zero duration, there is a statistical possibility that space-time
'just happens' and that is what we call the big-bang. This is similar to the way that uncertainty demands a statistical possibility for an electron to
'tunnel' across a classically nonconducting barrier allows the transistor to work.

There is another way of looking at it. Since is the human mind is hard pressed to comprehend a 4D space-time concept 'in one go' it is impossible to
picture a 5D concept. But mathematics has no trouble doing so. In 4D space-time singularities exist at the Big Bang, Big Crunch (maybe), and Black
Holes. In 5D, singularities do not exist - the Big Bang/Crunch is 'just' the center of a torus (donut shape), and the problems with different physics
being required for the singularity don't exist either.

An animated GIF demonstrating the idea was posted on the first or second page of the thread I believe.

EDIT: I cannot find that GIF posted. Must been thinking of another thread. Here's a animated VID of the concept:

Magnetic fields often imply an electrical current. The sun and moon follow the pattern of such a current according to the magnetic field of the earth.
The earth is a 4-dimensional being, and our 3-dimensional models do not explain the whole picture.

that 4-dimensional shape (a circle ascending in itself over time) is ubiquitous in nature

Quite so.

But in this case, this video is an attempt to create a 2D projection of a 3D projection of a 4D projection of a 5D concept. This is way beyond the
ability of the human mind to visualize, and this image naturally loses information along the way.

The actual 5D concept can be represented accurately only in mathematics.

Our attempts to visualize it are quite limited. The video describes the torus as being comprised of 4D layers, and in turn 4D visualizations often use
a time/position 'worm' or motion picture image metaphor to describe them. In the motion picture metaphor, each 'frame' represents a 3D space but a
film frame is really only 2D.

Magnetic fields often imply an electrical current.

Yep, that is why the call it 'electro-magnetism'. However, in this case we are not talking about electro-magnatism - we are talking about approaching
a "Theory of Everything" where all the fundamental forces are united as different aspects of the same thing.

The sun and moon follow the pattern of such a current according to the magnetic field of the earth.

The moon doesn't have a magnetic field but the sun does. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

The earth is a 4-dimensional being, and our 3-dimensional models do not explain the whole picture.

Yes, the fourth dimension being Time. The cosmos appears to be a 5 dimension (at least) object and 4 dimension models run into trouble at the Big
Bang/Crunch and at Black Holes. The 5 dimension model is an attempt to unify the 4 fundamental forces: gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and
electromagnetic. These last three have been seemingly unified using 4D models - that is the so called Grand Unified Theory (GUT), but gravity is
'resisting' our attempts to include it in the GUT - thus the focus on 5D models. In the 5D model, the singularity does not occur; just a smooth
transition from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang - similar to the way that there is no 'pole' at the North Pole.

This is very typical of the opposition on this board: posts which have the weight of scientific evidence, the work that REAL scientists put into the
discovery process and get no response and are ignored. Happens all the time.

I'm posting one more article which clearly shows that the wild type and mutant gene can co-exist and reproduce.
This, of course, is not always the case. The point is that the original wild type gene does not always go away - it can survive and reproduce along
side a mutation of itself.

Of course that would have to happen for the theorized mechanism of evolution to occur - if the new mutant can't reproduce it is an erroneous mutation
no matter how beneficial.

This is very typical of the opposition on this board: posts which have the weight of scientific evidence, the work that REAL scientists put
into the discovery process and get no response and are ignored. Happens all the time.

Here's a message: You're not off the hook.

ha. Look, it is difficult to communicate the logical fallacies integral to evolutionary theory with someone who believes evolution is fact and not
theory. Please read the following carefully:

If a mutant acquires a beneficial gene mutation, that mutant no longer has the old gene sequence that the wild-type has. You will not be able to join
both the old and the new gene together to allow both to be expressed - it is "either or" in this hypothetical scenario. Therefore, since you cannot
"add" a new gene without subtracting an old gene's integrity, you cannot evolve species in this sort of manner. For example, if a mutant receives a
mutated lac-gene that, against all odds, codes for a new protein that does something beneficial in the organism and doesn't upset homeostatic
equilibrium, then you still have lost the proper functioning of the lac operon!

The paper you posted furthers this point - you are either a mutant or wild type, you don't maintain the old code if you are the mutant; which
should make any curious mind wonder "how do you ever add more code without overwriting old code?"

Where does it say in the paper I posted that the wild type and/or the mutant type cannot reproduce?

I said of course that has to (and does) happen. You completely missed my point. My point was that neither wild-type or mutant can possess both the old
and new gene. Therefore the new functioning gene will overwrite the old gene. For example:

ACGTTACGAGCCAAATAG ----mutation----> ACGTGTACGAGCCAAATAG

If the "G" insert mutation causes a code for an effective new protein, then the old protein prior to the mutation will not be coded for any more.
Therefore, in gaining a new protein (and thus gene) you no longer create the old protein prior to the mutation.

Where does it say in the paper I posted that the wild type and/or the mutant type cannot reproduce?

I said of course that has to (and does) happen. But neither wild-type or mutant can possess both the old and new gene.

If a mutant acquires a beneficial gene mutation, that mutant no longer has the old gene sequence that the wild-type has. You will not be able to join
both the old and the new gene together to allow both to be expressed - it is "either or" in this hypothetical scenario. Therefore, since you cannot
"add" a new gene without subtracting an old gene's integrity, you cannot evolve species in this sort of manner.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.